Kneesworth House

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

This means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness. They respected patients’ privacy and dignity. They understood the individual needs of patients and supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. Staff involved patients in care planning and risk assessment and actively sought their feedback on the quality of care provided. Staff informed and involved families and carers appropriately.

This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff attitudes and behaviours when interacting with patients showed that they were discreet, respectful and responsive, providing patients with help, emotional support and advice at the time they needed it. We saw good interaction between staff and patients. We observed staff responding to patients calmly and sensitively. Staff were kind when dealing with a patient that was agitated. Every time a patient knocked on the office door staff responded promptly.

Staff supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. Patients told us they spoke to the doctor if they had any queries about their medication.

Some patients said staff treated them well and behaved kindly. Some patients said that staff were very good. They said staff listened to their concerns and were supportive.

Staff supported patients to access additional services when required, including physical health services.

Staff maintained the confidentiality of information about patients. Information held on electronic systems was protected. Staff entered a personal username and password to access this information. Patient information recorded on paper was held in locked filing cabinets.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights and how to complain. Patients told us they knew how to complain and how to contact an independent advocate. We saw evidence of this in patient records, as well as evidence of patients being read their rights.

Managers ensured that staff and patients had easy access to interpreters, including British Sign Language (BSL) interpreters if required.

Staff ensured that patients had access to appropriate spiritual support. The hospital facilitated visits from Christian and Muslim religious leaders. Patients could access spiritual support for other faiths when required.

Patients had a choice of food to meet the dietary requirements of religious and ethnic groups and to account for allergies and intolerances. There were a wide range of varied food options available to cater to all needs, however some patients told us they did not enjoy the food. Leaders told us that they were looking at ways to respond to patients’ feedback about the food. Patient feedback about food was discussed in the July 2025 clinical governance meeting and an action plan was documented.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Staff supported people to understand and be involved in their own care and treatment. Most of the patients we spoke to told us that they were involved in creating their care plans with staff and that they were reviewed regularly.

Staff within the service had a good understanding of patient’s mental health, their risk history and their social circumstances outside hospital. Occupational therapists and activity co-ordinators supported patients to pursue their interests and hobbies.

Patients could make their own hot drinks and snacks without relying on staff. Patients had access to drinks at all times. Patients kept their own food in a fridge. Staff told us they were able to facilitate a patient’s cat to be brought to the hospital so the patient could spend some time with their pet. Other patients had visits from their dogs and could walk them around the hospital grounds.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff were aware of and dealt with any specific risk issues, such as self-harm, vulnerability or violence towards others and care planned for these accordingly.

Staff identified and responded to changing risks to, or posed by, patients. There was a good staff presence on the wards throughout the service during the inspection. Staff were engaging with patients and were able to notice and respond to any change in risks.

Staff used de-escalation techniques to reduce the need for physical interventions when patients’ behaviours became heightened. Patient records included evidence of de-escalation attempts being used before physical interventions. Where physical intervention was required, we saw evidence in one patient’s records of restraint being used in a sensitive manner to give medication.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff, and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff felt respected, supported and valued. Staff felt positive and proud about working for the service and their team.

Staff had access to support for their own physical and emotional health needs through an occupational health service. Staff had access to a free and confidential counselling service. Staff received reflective practice and were debriefed following incidents.

The provider recognised staff success within the service. For example, the service held staff awards. Senior managers provided staff with positive feedback when they did something well and leaders told us positive feedback from carers was shared in the morning meetings they attended.

Staff appraisals included conversations about career development and how it could be supported. The provider supported a cohort of healthcare support workers to apply for and complete a nursing qualification.